At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

I think such statement is just troll bait. Creationist, Iders, evolution skeptics all know the theory is human and chimps from common ancestor.

The remark is that this common ancestor appears to be an ape, and if extant today would be classified as a chimp.

As for the actual transitional form between chimp and human. There is no specific one cited by science. Scientist have tried passing off specimens of such transitional forms in the past. All of which have been found to be hoaxes.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

I am an Ape, my mother is an Ape; as are all human beings on this planet. Hence I definitely came from an Ape.

Monkeys is paraphyletic, as it means anything in the order Simiiformes, excluding apes; but Simiiformes are essentially the cladistic equivalent of "Monkey", and we're that too.

So, in both cases, we definitely came from / evolved from apes; and you could argue we came from / evolved from monkeys too.

I think the error that many Creationists in this regard, is not understanding that we're not talking about the apes and monkeys that exist today, although it could be argued if one of the species alive today is more of a Kareotype of the species that are our common ancestors, it's probably also arguable (although less so too).

The problem I have with Creationists using this argument, is generally two fold.

1.) There is an implication or argument that we're not apes, or not simiiformes now; the point of course we came from apes, because we're still apes.

2.) That being an ape is an inherently a bad thing; or being an ape means you're not as smart, or fling feaces at passers buy.

The first is equivocation; based on confusing the cladistic "ape" with colloquial "ape". The second is more of an appeal to emotion.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

I think such statement is just troll bait. Creationist, Iders, evolution skeptics all know the theory is human and chimps from common ancestor.

The remark is that this common ancestor appears to be an ape, and if extant today would be classified as a chimp.

As for the actual transitional form between chimp and human. There is no specific one cited by science. Scientist have tried passing off specimens of such transitional forms in the past. All of which have been found to be hoaxes.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

You know that's not true; and I'm not entirely sure why you have simply decided to assert something that you know is not true is true.

You should be fully aware, for example, that it's the traits, form and features that render something a human ancestor and what renders a fossil part of human evolution is that it presents a set of features, some of which are like humans, some of which are ape like. With a sequence built up with a collection of species getting consistently more human and less ape like when arranged by time.

I'm sure, however, that you'll deem it irrelevant to actually support anything you've said on this matter with actual evidence.

Indeed, it's the most laughable part of Creationists arguing against homid evolution is that they all agree species on the ape side are "100% ape" and species on the human side are "100% human" but they all come up with different answers with the species in the middle; some being "100% human" and some being "100% ape"; with one Creationist actually changing his mind when being asked 10 years later!

When being forced to decide whether a species is a human, or an ape; and finding it so easy to get different answers kinda shows you it's ambiguous!

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

I think such statement is just troll bait. Creationist, Iders, evolution skeptics all know the theory is human and chimps from common ancestor.

The remark is that this common ancestor appears to be an ape, and if extant today would be classified as a chimp.

As for the actual transitional form between chimp and human. There is no specific one cited by science. Scientist have tried passing off specimens of such transitional forms in the past. All of which have been found to be hoaxes.

None are said to be the link between chimpanzees and humans. All of them are after the last divergence of chimps 4 million years ago.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

You know that's not true; and I'm not entirely sure why you have simply decided to assert something that you know is not true is true.

You should be fully aware, for example, that it's the traits, form and features that render something a human ancestor and what renders a fossil part of human evolution is that it presents a set of features, some of which are like humans, some of which are ape like. With a sequence built up with a collection of species getting consistently more human and less ape like when arranged by time.

I'm sure, however, that you'll deem it irrelevant to actually support anything you've said on this matter with actual evidence.

Indeed, it's the most laughable part of Creationists arguing against homid evolution is that they all agree species on the ape side are "100% ape" and species on the human side are "100% human" but they all come up with different answers with the species in the middle; some being "100% human" and some being "100% ape"; with one Creationist actually changing his mind when being asked 10 years later!

When being forced to decide whether a species is a human, or an ape; and finding it so easy to get different answers kinda shows you it's ambiguous!

Okay I'll concede.If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.

But when you try to get the specific chimp human link, none

chimp ape link, none.

chimp bonobo link, none

When an ape looking creature doesn't fit the story all the loop holes of evolution come to bare.

In the past, G. blacki was thought to be closely related to early hominins, particularly Australopithecus, on the basis of molar evidence; this is now regarded a result of convergent evolution.[11] Gigantopithecus is now placed in the subfamily Ponginae along with the orangutan.[12]

Scientist found a giant ape, molars and jaw bone. And from this they conjured (not a misspelling) an image of creature. Some even suggested it walked bipedal, like Humans!

But people didn't like the idea of coming out of Asia from a large 1,000 lb gorilla. No got to stay with Africa. So they reclassified the gorilla as an ancient gorilla. And the facets that inspired human connection were re-explained as convergent evolution.

that's the evolutionist way of saying a body feature having the same shape is NOT evidence of Ancestry. Unlike the evolutionist explanation for everything else. It's a case of special pleading.

So either body plans are a reliable feature of ancestry or they are not.

But my point was there is no fossil example of chimp human transitional fossil. Just like there is no fossil evidence for gorilla-chimp or -chimp-bonobo.

It's kind of "lucky" that we have so many fossil examples of human ancestors.

Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please. : :

Everything man perceives within his mind comes from the same exact source. Monkey's get their thoughts from the same source, too.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please. : :

Everything man perceives within his mind comes from the same exact source. Monkey's get their thoughts from the same source, too.

Classifying things is a tricky business. Humans have a natural ability to classify things. We instinctively recognise something as a chair even if we have never seen that particular shape of chair before.

Science requires strict definitions rather than intuitions to define groups and sometimes that leads to the great tomato debate. According to the standard scientific definition of the terms 'fruit and vegetable' a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable, but if defining the terms had been left upto grocers and cooks (surely more qualified experts in this area than scientists) then things might be different.

So what does 'Ape' mean? What does 'Monkey' mean? After you specify the rule for what is and what is not an ape then either humans definitely are or definitely aren't apes - but which depends on the details of the rule.

If you want to deny men are apes you can simply choose a definition of man and ape than makes them distinct, and vice versa. Was the common ancestor of humans and chimps an ape or a human? That entirely depends on what rule you are using to define the terms. The objective facts don't change but describing those facts depends on using words, and to quote Humpty Dumpty "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean"neither more nor less."

Modern humans and modern chimps have a common ancestor - that is the objective fact. Whether we describe that as 'humans come from apes' or 'humans are apes' or in some other way is a matter of agreeing on a linguistic convention, or more accurately not agreeing on one.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please. : :

Everything man perceives within his mind comes from the same exact source. Monkey's get their thoughts from the same source, too.

None are said to be the link between chimpanzees and humans. All of them are after the last divergence of chimps 4 million years ago.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

You know that's not true; and I'm not entirely sure why you have simply decided to assert something that you know is not true is true.

You should be fully aware, for example, that it's the traits, form and features that render something a human ancestor and what renders a fossil part of human evolution is that it presents a set of features, some of which are like humans, some of which are ape like. With a sequence built up with a collection of species getting consistently more human and less ape like when arranged by time.

I'm sure, however, that you'll deem it irrelevant to actually support anything you've said on this matter with actual evidence.

Indeed, it's the most laughable part of Creationists arguing against homid evolution is that they all agree species on the ape side are "100% ape" and species on the human side are "100% human" but they all come up with different answers with the species in the middle; some being "100% human" and some being "100% ape"; with one Creationist actually changing his mind when being asked 10 years later!

When being forced to decide whether a species is a human, or an ape; and finding it so easy to get different answers kinda shows you it's ambiguous!

Okay I'll concede.If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

You've cited a single example, Gigantopithicus; and you don't seem to be making any argument or citing any evidence that it was a hoax. At best mistaken.

You've also seemingly railed against the reconstruction of Gigantopithicus; as if it's horrendous to reconstruct an ape from a skull. Ignoring the fact I can't find who did the reconstruction, I would point out that it's not like they gave it tentacles; or put on a mega-mind style super head. Is it particularly unreasonable to take a primitive ape skull and reconstruct an ape body based upon generalized ape morphology and proportions? What could they have got wrong? Did they use this reconstruction to base definitive conclusions off that reconstruction? Do I, or any other scientist make claims about what is definitively true based on that reconstruction? If the answer to either is no, then it doesn't matter; a reconstruction could be illustrative and an interesting "this could well be what it looked like", but that is normally all.

If it was done scientifically, then what constraints were put into the reconstruction? On what basis is it performed? Why are they unreasonable?

It seems you're not rejecting this reconstruction or unreasonable as wrong for any logical reason, any evidence, or any argument.

Just because it's a reconstruction; and that only matters if anything is based upon it.

Either way though, it digresses.

I'm calling you on a flat-out flagrant lie.

You've claimed that "all have found to be hoaxes".

Either withdraw that claim, say you were wrong, or actually show some examples of that demonstrate your claim is true.

Secondly, you appear to be claiming that there is no objective reason why various hominid forms are classified as they are. Strongly implying that we can classify apes, hominids as anything we want.

That again, is flat out wrong, and you know it's wrong. I know you know it's wrong because you have deliberately avoided mentioning any of the reasons given for any of the classification. You simply described one example of a species (based on an incomplete skeleton) changing it's apparent classification, and seem to argue that because this can change, everything is just made up.

Obviously, if you ignore the actual reasons why things are classified as they are, and the reasoning by which they change; you're argument becomes completely unsupported.

You don't talk about the reasoning behind the classification, nor could you provide any objective reason why, say, austrolapithicus could be classified as closer to humans than homo habalis.

If you're willing to actually look into the reasons why ANY of these species are classified they way they are, and then showing they could be equally well classified as something else; you may have a point, but we both know you have no ability to do that.

Hell, I'm sure you'll find reasons to argue that because scientists disagree as to whether a new hominid is a new species, an species of the genus homo, or a species of genus australipithicus; that the whole thing is meaningless; even though that's exactly what you would expect of a genuinely transitional hominid!

So in this regard here, pony up some justification. You should be able to show your implied position is correct with more than simply listing the changes scientists have made without considering, quoting or including any of the justifications or arguments they have given for the changes and classifications, and simply asserting that their motivations are nefarious.

These are two big lies your forwarding here, both of which are massively unsupported, and which I am calling you out on. Show me the evidence for your position.

None are said to be the link between chimpanzees and humans. All of them are after the last divergence of chimps 4 million years ago.

You didn't show they were hoaxes. It is impossible to know if any given fossil in the ground is the direct species where human and ape ancestors diverged and which is closely related to that ancestor. We do however have dozens of species that are part of the family tree of species that was part of the evolution of ape to humans. Ardipithecus Ramidus is thought be many scientists to be a possible candidate or at least closely related to the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Okay I'll concede.If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.

It has to have features transitional between humans and apes, found after we start seeing apes, found before we start seeing humans and in sequence with the other transitionals.

chimp ape link, none.

chimp bonobo link, none

Again, it is hard to know whether some fossils in the ground are more than just transitional fossils of a modern species' evolution and actually direct ancestors. The ape fossil record is still very incomplete.

We have found an ancestor of modern apes Rukwapithecus fleaglei in the fossil record that was very monkey-like 25 MYA which is close to when genetics claim apes and monkeys split. It was found with Nsungwepithecus gunnelli which was similar but was a full monkey. These fossils are close to when apes and monkeys split.http://www.sci-news.com...

We have found another transitional ancestor of apes Proconsul about 21 MYA which was even more ape-like but had a lot of monkey features. Dryopithecus evolved about 15 MYA and is very similar to modern apes.http://anthro.palomar.edu...

In the past, G. blacki was thought to be closely related to early hominins, particularly Australopithecus, on the basis of molar evidence; this is now regarded a result of convergent evolution.[11] Gigantopithecus is now placed in the subfamily Ponginae along with the orangutan.[12]

Scientist found a giant ape, molars and jaw bone. And from this they conjured (not a misspelling) an image of creature. Some even suggested it walked bipedal, like Humans!

You can't seriously be certain about what this species is because all we have are teeth. Of course scientists have trouble classifying a specimen we know so little about. The teeth highly resemble gorilla teeth teeth in some ways but there are some good arguments that it could be more like orangutans. Scientists don't know exactly what it is but have some interesting hypotheses. What is wrong about conjecturing using scant evidence when scientist admit this is a conjecture and admit more fossils are needed for a better picture?

But people didn't like the idea of coming out of Asia from a large 1,000 lb gorilla. No got to stay with Africa. So they reclassified the gorilla as an ancient gorilla. And the facets that inspired human connection were re-explained as convergent evolution.

We find the earliest hominid species in Africa not Asia. Also these hominids look nothing like gorillas and are more like chimps. The earliest hominids are about half the size of modern humans like chimps not giant gorillas. Also, chimps are more similar to humans than apes are.

It's kind of "lucky" that we have so many fossil examples of human ancestors.

We have hundreds of fossils and dozens of species all very well in sequence. It takes a lot of luck for this to happen without evolution.

At 5/1/2016 5:09:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.But when you try to get the specific chimp human link, nonechimp ape link, none.chimp bonobo link, none

The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.

None are said to be the link between chimpanzees and humans. All of them are after the last divergence of chimps 4 million years ago.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

You know that's not true; and I'm not entirely sure why you have simply decided to assert something that you know is not true is true.

You should be fully aware, for example, that it's the traits, form and features that render something a human ancestor and what renders a fossil part of human evolution is that it presents a set of features, some of which are like humans, some of which are ape like. With a sequence built up with a collection of species getting consistently more human and less ape like when arranged by time.

I'm sure, however, that you'll deem it irrelevant to actually support anything you've said on this matter with actual evidence.

Indeed, it's the most laughable part of Creationists arguing against homid evolution is that they all agree species on the ape side are "100% ape" and species on the human side are "100% human" but they all come up with different answers with the species in the middle; some being "100% human" and some being "100% ape"; with one Creationist actually changing his mind when being asked 10 years later!

When being forced to decide whether a species is a human, or an ape; and finding it so easy to get different answers kinda shows you it's ambiguous!

Okay I'll concede.If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

Concede I was revering to every half-ape half-human transition fossil sold to the public. This being the Peltdown man and ilk.

I'll reword my assertions. There are no fossil examples of the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human. Where I define chimpanzee as an ancestor of the extant chimpanzee. And define human as an upright walking hominid.

There is no fossil example of divergence between Human and hominids. Where I define human as having 46 chromosomes and incapable of mating with hominids.

You've cited a single example, Gigantopithicus; and you don't seem to be making any argument or citing any evidence that it was a hoax. At best mistaken.

I wasn't using Gigantopithicus as an example of hoax. Just an example of how the Scientific community operates when ape like fossils are found. The initial conjecture is to make it an ancestor of mankind. Until it contradicts with the out of Africa or other facet of the human evolution narrative.

But even with fossil examples such as A. Africanus the possibility of it being a chimp ancestor and unrelated to humans is very real. Even the possibility of it being a chimp species that eventually went extinct unrelated to humans is very real as well.

It's inclusion into the human ancestry is because during it's discovery the Piltdown man was being affirmed by the community, on the premise that the first recognizable feature of mankind from apes would be an increased brain size.

The only thing casually connecting it to human ancestry is the premise, the conjecture, that human divergence from apes began with an enlarged brain.

None are said to be the link between chimpanzees and humans. All of them are after the last divergence of chimps 4 million years ago.

So the new statement of human chimp common ancestor is: there is none.

The chimpanzee"human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that looks like an ape or a gorilla is called a human ancestor.

You know that's not true; and I'm not entirely sure why you have simply decided to assert something that you know is not true is true.

You should be fully aware, for example, that it's the traits, form and features that render something a human ancestor and what renders a fossil part of human evolution is that it presents a set of features, some of which are like humans, some of which are ape like. With a sequence built up with a collection of species getting consistently more human and less ape like when arranged by time.

I'm sure, however, that you'll deem it irrelevant to actually support anything you've said on this matter with actual evidence.

Indeed, it's the most laughable part of Creationists arguing against homid evolution is that they all agree species on the ape side are "100% ape" and species on the human side are "100% human" but they all come up with different answers with the species in the middle; some being "100% human" and some being "100% ape"; with one Creationist actually changing his mind when being asked 10 years later!

When being forced to decide whether a species is a human, or an ape; and finding it so easy to get different answers kinda shows you it's ambiguous!

Okay I'll concede.If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

Concede I was revering to every half-ape half-human transition fossil sold to the public. This being the Peltdown man and ilk.

I'll reword my assertions. There are no fossil examples of the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human. Where I define chimpanzee as an ancestor of the extant chimpanzee. And define human as an upright walking hominid.

There is no fossil example of divergence between Human and hominids. Where I define human as having 46 chromosomes and incapable of mating with hominids.

Even if evolution is true there is no way you are going to know if any of the fossils we have are the missing link because we don't have their DNA. Just because a fossil is very old, and only has a few human traits does not mean it is the missing link between humans and chimps. For all we know there is an older fossil not yet found that predates this species. Maybe this species is only similar to the common ancestor.

However we can tell whether a fossil is in the family tree of species that are part of the transition of humans and apes. So if we would not be able to specifically identify missing links if evolution was true, then how is a lack of specifically identified missing links evidence against evolution?

You've cited a single example, Gigantopithicus; and you don't seem to be making any argument or citing any evidence that it was a hoax. At best mistaken.

I wasn't using Gigantopithicus as an example of hoax. Just an example of how the Scientific community operates when ape like fossils are found. The initial conjecture is to make it an ancestor of mankind. Until it contradicts with the out of Africa or other facet of the human evolution narrative.

This fossil was never claimed to be an ancestor of mankind. It was only thought to be closely related but the scientists themselves admitted that this was only a conjecture because we only had its teeth. Right now they conjecture it is convergent evolution but again, this is still only a conjecture and we only have teeth. When we find more bones then we can make more definite conclusions. The other hominids we find have far more complete specimens so this is a bad analogy.

But even with fossil examples such as A. Africanus the possibility of it being a chimp ancestor and unrelated to humans is very real. Even the possibility of it being a chimp species that eventually went extinct unrelated to humans is very real as well.

That is very unlikely because it walks on two legs just like humans, have less ape-like faces, and has a 25% larger brain size. It is far more likely to be an ancestor of humans. It is also found in plains of Eastern Africa where the newer homo species evolved, instead of the jungles of Western Africa were the chimps live.

I would say that it is most likely that they are a human ancestor or closely related to the human ancestor based on the time, location, and physical characteristics and your interpretation doesn't line up with the facts at all. We have found dozens of highly complete specimens unlike Giganthropus where we have only found a few teeth.

It's inclusion into the human ancestry is because during it's discovery the Piltdown man was being affirmed by the community, on the premise that the first recognizable feature of mankind from apes would be an increased brain size.

The only thing casually connecting it to human ancestry is the premise, the conjecture, that human divergence from apes began with an enlarged brain.

A. Africanus had a brain size of 400-500 cc which is larger than chimps with 300-400 cc but still very very small and in the general ape range. A. Africanus showed an creature that walked but had a small brain unlike Piltdown that suggested that the brain size expanded early.

Because of Piltdown the first A. Africanus fossils like the Taung Child were actually ignored not supported because they conflicted. Eventually we found enough fossils showing a small brain for early hominids that Piltdown was called into question and we later found it was fake. So you have this completely wrong. We think A. Africanus is an ancestor mainly because it is bipedial. It has much less to do with brain size.

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

Concede I was revering to every half-ape half-human transition fossil sold to the public. This being the Peltdown man and ilk.

And all the examples I cited; they are not all hoaxes. In fact, there has been, to my knowledge one single fraudulent specimen in piltdown man, which was revealed by scientists, many, many years after it was relegated to a curious evolutionary aberration because it didn't fit with what we know. I can imagine there could be more, but I don't think any have actually been held up as valid transitional forms.

Any more hoaxes you care to mention? Or by "all found to be hoaxes" you mean one or two out of the significantly large number of hominid fossils.

I'll reword my assertions. There are no fossil examples of the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human. Where I define chimpanzee as an ancestor of the extant chimpanzee. And define human as an upright walking hominid.

There is no fossil example of divergence between Human and hominids. Where I define human as having 46 chromosomes and incapable of mating with hominids.

There are, thousands of individual specimens of dozens of individual species of hominid fossils, all of which show, with time, a gradual progression in morphology, cranial capacity, tool use, intelligence, and bipedality in the fossil record.

If this species was alive today, it would likely easily be recognized as halfway between chimpanzees and humans; with other species before and after showing increased, and decreased other-ape like and other human-like features.

Obviously, you know this and, I'm sure, reject it out of hand with no good reason.

Yes; there are definitely candidates for such a transition; thee include Orrorin and Sahelanthropus. Species I'm sure you will reject out of hand, again, not because there is any fault in any of the interpretation, or that they are not compelling candidates for such a transition but because you say they don't count without dealing with any of the explanations, reasoning or evidence that details why they do.

I wasn't using Gigantopithicus as an example of hoax. Just an example of how the Scientific community operates when ape like fossils are found. The initial conjecture is to make it an ancestor of mankind. Until it contradicts with the out of Africa or other facet of the human evolution narrative.

The only thing casually connecting it to human ancestry is the premise, the conjecture, that human divergence from apes began with an enlarged brain.

Actually, for all hominid evolutionary finds classified as part of the chain of human evolution are based upon progressively changing traits; this include skeletal morphology, bipedalism and cranial capacity. These things are the thing that have changed and there is no requirement or contention that it definitively started with an enlarged brain; instead what came first is largely determined by the evidence.

So again, it seems you're trying to justify the falsehood, with further falsehoods. It gets me that someone that is convinced that they are so right is forced to resort to distortion and misrepresentation when making a point.

The position of hominid fossils, and their relation to human evolution, is based on the properties and traits of those species. With more species, and more evidence, relative positions may likely change as a clearer picture emerges.

However, your argument in response, is unsupported speculation about the malefesance of the scientists, unsupported speculation about all relevant classifications being arbitrary by citing a handful of examples where things change and asserting that because these things change a little, then ALL of the classification must be arbitrary. That's a fallacy of composition and is not good logic, leave alone good science.

You're not attacking the specific justifications, conclusions, observations, evidence or logical reasoning behind why such hominid fossils are evolutionary links; you're just asserting they are not through a circumstantial speculative argument about a handful of cases.

If you're right, you should be able to show it by easily challenging the specific reasoning and justifications given for the specific interpretations; and demonstrably showing them to be arbitrary.

But you don't. You rely on a misportrayal of what the scientists have done in a few cases, speculate that it applies to everything, and use that to pretend that your position is reasonable even though you have given no rationale or detailed argument as to why anything you have said is actually true.

"Based on the time frame, body shape, and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo. Most likely, some of the australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below) were in our line of evolution, but the later paranthropoids (blue below) were not. The first humans (Homo habilis click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced) were contemporaries of the paranthropoids. As a result, they could not be our ancestors. However, it is likely that Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus were in our evolutionary line. Australopithecus garhi and/or Australopitheus sediba may also have been our ancestors, though more evidence is needed to settle this question."

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

Concede I was revering to every half-ape half-human transition fossil sold to the public. This being the Peltdown man and ilk.

And all the examples I cited; they are not all hoaxes. In fact, there has been, to my knowledge one single fraudulent specimen in piltdown man, which was revealed by scientists, many, many years after it was relegated to a curious evolutionary aberration because it didn't fit with what we know. I can imagine there could be more, but I don't think any have actually been held up as valid transitional forms.

I already conceded. Sure not diliberate hoaxes. Just a recurring theme that suggests all evolutionary claims be taken with a large grain of salt.

this is true for the whale evolution where Rodhecetus being drawn with a whale flute. before the hind quarters were found.

Nebreska Man, the transitional fossil that started the Scopes trial and had the supreme court ruling that Evolution should be the standard taught in schools. Nebraska Man was based on a tooth and subsequent excavations after the trial found it was a pigs tooth. ((but did the trial get revisited? nope)

Darwinist suggested the half human and half ape transitional forms if not found in the fossil record might be found living today. Because no one can deny the Evolution based racism that erupted, you can only look at scientist passing Australian aborigeness, island pygmies, and native americans off as sub human. As examples of half animal-half human transitional forms.

Ramapithecus was passed off as a hominid ancestor, complete with human like features. Only after it was demonstrated to probably be a baboon was it quickly forgotten

The Artist and Sculptors conjuration of human ancestors is the greatest ally to evolutionist. And yet when the exaggerated claims lacking fossil evidence, or the wishful thinking of anthropologist soundly critiqued. The damage is done. and the Wool is pulled over the publics eyes.

And while many of you confuse ID with Creationists, I am an advocate of evolution. And I see a culture where all skepticism is so profoundly dismissed, ignored, and ridiculed that even a HEALTHY Skepticism of the claims is admonished. To the theories detriment.

Any more hoaxes you care to mention? Or by "all found to be hoaxes" you mean one or two out of the significantly large number of hominid fossils.

Sure I'll recede that comment as well and have elaborated on the connotation I meant to transmit.

I'll reword my assertions. There are no fossil examples of the divergence between Chimpanzee and Human. Where I define chimpanzee as an ancestor of the extant chimpanzee. And define human as an upright walking hominid.

There is no fossil example of divergence between Human and hominids. Where I define human as having 46 chromosomes and incapable of mating with hominids.

There are, thousands of individual specimens of dozens of individual species of hominid fossils, all of which show, with time, a gradual progression in morphology, cranial capacity, tool use, intelligence, and bipedality in the fossil record.

Are humans the only creature that uses tools? Are they the only animals that are bipedal, ect..

So from an adaptation to environmental conditions you assert genetic relationship. but I'm not talking about all hominid fossils.

That sentence you constantly want to point to was in direct reference to chimp-human ancestry. If the genetics say Chimpanzees could have been mating with humans as recently as 4 million years ago, then it makes a fast number of those hominid fossils unrelated to humans and probably related to chimpanzee hybridization.

If this species was alive today, it would likely easily be recognized as halfway between chimpanzees and humans; with other species before and after showing increased, and decreased other-ape like and other human-like features.

If you are referring to something like A.africanus the brain capacity is similar to chimps. And I suspect we would mistake it for a bonobo.

Obviously, you know this and, I'm sure, reject it out of hand with no good reason.

My reasoning is simple. I don't see mistake a bonobo like creature as a human ancestor without more evidence than features that are within the normal range of extant chimpanzees, or features that have convergently evolved in other apes before.

Yes; there are definitely candidates for such a transition; thee include Orrorin

https://en.wikipedia.org...Orrorin tugenensis is a postulated early species of Homininae, estimated at 6.1 to 5.7 million years (Ma) and discovered in 2000. It is not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans.

Notice the picture of the fossils found. What is that 3 hip joints and a thumb?

and Sahelanthropus.

Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Touma" is indeed a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus whose thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominins (notably Homo erectus), and where the brow ridge morphology of Sahelanthropus differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominins and extant humans.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Did you catch that? Making Sahelanthropus a direct ancestor of mankind would cause problems with the agreed upon story. All based on a broken up skull

I love reading this stuff. i love how the first sentence says human-chimpanzee ancestor.. and then when the facts are looked at it turns into "contested, problematic" And not a human ancestor.

Species I'm sure you will reject out of hand, again, not because there is any fault in any of the interpretation, or that they are not compelling candidates for such a transition but because you say they don't count without dealing with any of the explanations, reasoning or evidence that details why they do.

no I'm not rejecting them. The Scientific community of evolutionist proposing the human evolution from ape and chimp ancestors is rejecting them for various reasons.

As far as I know the pathology of human diseases presents a case that mankind evolved from a chimp-pig hybridization.

I wasn't using Gigantopithicus as an example of hoax. Just an example of how the Scientific community operates when ape like fossils are found. The initial conjecture is to make it an ancestor of mankind. Until it contradicts with the out of Africa or other facet of the human evolution narrative.

The only thing casually connecting it to human ancestry is the premise, the conjecture, that human divergence from apes began with an enlarged brain.

Actually, for all hominid evolutionary finds classified as part of the chain of human evolution are based upon progressively changing traits; this include skeletal morphology, bipedalism and cranial capacity. These things are the thing that have changed and there is no requirement or contention that it definitively started with an enlarged brain; instead what came first is largely determined by the evidence.

The large brain first premise came out before the evidence. the evidence has been made to fit the conjecture. hence why the piltdown man was even constructed. And every article I read about early African chimp like creatures, always point to brain capacity. And I almost think intentionally, measure it in cc's, don't provide the body mass index, and don't compare the brain capacity with extant, similar and similarly sized species. But when truly compared the differences between bonobos and A.Africanus then disappear.

So again, it seems you're trying to justify the falsehood, with further falsehoods. It gets me that someone that is convinced that they are so right is forced to resort to distortion and misrepresentation when making a point.

Really cause I have now conceded and recended the word "hoax" 3 times now. And have reworded my contention to be :The initial conjecture is to make it an ancestor of mankind. Until it contradicts with the out of Africa or other facet of the human evolution narrative." The their claims have a tendency to be exaggerated upon weak or few fossil evidence, and should be taken with a large grain of salt and reasoning.

But I see you peddling the same double talk as the Steadfast Evolutionist. You present examples of transitional forms and then upon more research of those forms we find the consensus of scientist is still a resounding no. Not a human-chimp common ancestor.

The position of hominid fossils, and their relation to human evolution, is based on the properties and traits of those species. With more species, and more evidence, relative positions may likely change as a clearer picture emerges.

Sure and the traits and features that are such solid evidence are reimagined to be convergent evolution.

However, your argument in response, is unsupported speculation about the malefesance of the scientists, unsupported speculation about all relevant classifications being arbitrary by citing a handful of examples where things change and asserting that because these things change a little, then ALL of the classification must be arbitrary. That's a fallacy of composition and is not good logic, leave alone good science.

You're not attacking the specific justifications, conclusions, observations, evidence or logical reasoning behind why such hominid fossils are evolutionary links; you're just asserting they are not through a circumstantial speculative argument about a handful of cases.

I'm saying being skeptical of evolutionist is such a caeer killer that any critisim is met with severe admonishment. This includes healthy skeptism about evolutionary claims.

And If I see claim after claim based on weak evidence and speculation of the scientist being so quickly accepted, I am critical.

An anthropologist that comes out and claims X tooth is from a human ancestor that proves we came from apes, can get that idea so popular so fast that court cases are affirmed before a full excavation is made. That the piltdown man can be portrayed as a human ancestor for over a 100 years. When I read evolutionary principles that other theories are based on going unchallenged and untested for 30+ years.. yeah I don't think that is good science.

If you're right, you should be able to show it by easily challenging the specific reasoning and justifications given for the specific interpretations; and demonstrably showing them to be arbitrary.

But you don't. You rely on a misportrayal of what the scientists have done in a few cases, speculate that it applies to everything, and use that to pretend that your position is reasonable even though you have given no rationale or detailed argument as to why anything you have said is actually true.

Read my post where I link to a picture of human evolution. As you can see the scientific consensus states the same objections and missing data as I point to.

At 5/1/2016 5:09:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.But when you try to get the specific chimp human link, nonechimp ape link, none.chimp bonobo link, none

The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.

As for the genetic similarities, They to are not a link that A.Africanus is related to humans, or it's related to chimps.

It be a more believable story if maybe from the differences in the genetic code, could be demonstrated to cause some physical feature seen in the fossil.

Then we could say 4.4 million years ago chimpanzees and human stopped having sex. And the human offspring had XYZ genes that meant brains of 500cc, but the Chimpanzee offspring who don't have XYZ only have 450cc.

And this fossil Africanus. Isfromus has 500cc brain capacity. And can be dated to 4.4 million years ago.

But we don't have that. All we have is a time frame from genetics, being conjecture to a physical feature of a fossil.

You made two outrageous claims in your previous post. Two claims that you flat out-know are not correct. That you make them anyway indicates that it's not just being incorrect, you're actually lying to try and make your position sound stronger. I am taking issue with that, and I'm going to keep pressing you on it.

Firstly, that "All of which have been found to be hoaxes."

Concede I was revering to every half-ape half-human transition fossil sold to the public. This being the Peltdown man and ilk.

And all the examples I cited; they are not all hoaxes. In fact, there has been, to my knowledge one single fraudulent specimen in piltdown man, which was revealed by scientists, many, many years after it was relegated to a curious evolutionary aberration because it didn't fit with what we know. I can imagine there could be more, but I don't think any have actually been held up as valid transitional forms.

I already conceded. Sure not diliberate hoaxes. Just a recurring theme that suggests all evolutionary claims be taken with a large grain of salt.

In your previous post, it wasn't clear that you were conceding they were not hoaxes, but that it applied to a given branch. I'm sorry for the confusion.

this is true for the whale evolution where Rodhecetus being drawn with a whale fluke. before the hind quarters were found.

... and it still may have had a fluke; and having a fluke is a reasonable conclusion to make without a tail. Importantly, the fluke has no effect on it's transitional status; which is based on it's nasal passage, it's clear adaptation to more open water, it's pelvis, and other skeletal features...

Nebreska Man

... which never passed peer review; and was never seriously considered by anyone but the discoverer.

Darwinist suggested the half human and half ape transitional forms if not found in the fossil record might be found living today. Because no one can deny the Evolution based racism that erupted, you can only look at scientist passing Australian aborigeness, island pygmies, and native americans off as sub human. As examples of half animal-half human transitional forms.

Ramapithecus was passed off as a hominid ancestor, complete with human like features. Only after it was demonstrated to probably be a baboon was it quickly forgotten

Actually, an ancestor to orangutans as the picture of evolution became clearer since the 1930's in which it was discovered/

The Artist and Sculptors conjuration of human ancestors is the greatest ally to evolutionist. And yet when the exaggerated claims lacking fossil evidence, or the wishful thinking of anthropologist soundly critiqued. The damage is done. and the Wool is pulled over the publics eyes.

And I see a culture where all skepticism is so profoundly dismissed, ignored, and ridiculed that even a HEALTHY Skepticism of the claims is admonished. To the theories detriment.

This isn't skepticism. This is you saying a bunch of the science is wrong now, because it has been wrong in a few cases in the past. Moreover, two of the three examples you cite are misrepresentative, and have no bearing on anything whatsoever, and the third was a reasonable conclusion until more evidence was found that contradicted it.

So no, this is not skepticism. If it were skepticism, you'd be attacking the rationale, and justification for why things are stated to be as they are.

You're not doing that, instead, you're saying the science conclusion is likely wrong for no reason you can explain, justify or provide evidence for, because of a handful of misrepresented examples you've cited.

There are, thousands of individual specimens of dozens of individual species of hominid fossils, all of which show, with time, a gradual progression in morphology, cranial capacity, tool use, intelligence, and bipedality in the fossil record.

Are humans the only creature that uses tools? Are they the only animals that are bipedal, ect..

No, but the question is irrelevant. We're talking about humans (which have those things), and other apes (which don't); and their evolution which, if it occurred, would have caused those things to be gained.

So from an adaptation to environmental conditions you assert genetic relationship. but I'm not talking about all hominid fossils.

No, from a genetic relationship I assert a genetic relationship.

That sentence you constantly want to point to was in direct reference to chimp-human ancestry. If the genetics say Chimpanzees could have been mating with humans as recently as 4 million years ago, then it makes a fast number of those hominid fossils unrelated to humans and probably related to chimpanzee hybridization.

Based on what evidence? You're supposed to be a skeptic; liberal use of speculative assertions and presenting your opinion (based on speculation) as if it's as good as the established science.

If you are referring to something like A.africanus the brain capacity is similar to chimps. And I suspect we would mistake it for a bonobo.

My reasoning is simple. I don't see mistake a bonobo like creature as a human ancestor without more evidence than features that are within the normal range of extant chimpanzees, or features that have convergently evolved in other apes before.

Like all the other features that are not within normal range of extant chimpanzee's? Such as the pelvic and some cranial features?

I love reading this stuff. i love how the first sentence says human-chimpanzee ancestor.. and then when the facts are looked at it turns into "contested, problematic" And not a human ancestor.

Well, lets ignore that your claim here is a misrepresentation of what is actually said in the links; the problem is, again, you're making no argument against hominid evolution at all; merely objecting to scientists changing their mind as they get new evidence being an indication that they're probably wrong on everything.

Moreover, you object to the use of a few bones to determine the type of organism. Is that really a good argument? I know you probably can't tell a human femur apart from an ape femur; but do you think it's impossible that different species femurs have specific characteristics, different from other species femurs? You seem to reject this out of hand without any sort of justification.

Species I'm sure you will reject out of hand, again, not because there is any fault in any of the interpretation, or that they are not compelling candidates for such a transition but because you say they don't count without dealing with any of the explanations, reasoning or evidence that details why they do.

no I'm not rejecting them. The Scientific community of evolutionist proposing the human evolution from ape and chimp ancestors is rejecting them for various reasons.

Actually, again a misrepresentation, many accept them for various reasons too; they could both very well be common ancestors, or related to common ancestors, but to know for certain we need more data. I thought you were supposed to be a skeptic?

As far as I know the pathology of human diseases presents a case that mankind evolved from a chimp-pig hybridization.

At 5/2/2016 1:24:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:You all need to bone up on the human Evolutionary story.

this is what scientist are saying now.

"Based on the time frame, body shape, and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo. Most likely, some of the australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below) were in our line of evolution, but the later paranthropoids (blue below) were not. The first humans (Homo habilis click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced) were contemporaries of the paranthropoids. As a result, they could not be our ancestors. However, it is likely that Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus were in our evolutionary line. Australopithecus garhi and/or Australopitheus sediba may also have been our ancestors, though more evidence is needed to settle this question."

Do you see the question marks? See how there is no link between homo and the red line.

And I still stand by my early assertion. there is no fossil example of the divergence between human and chimp.

No fossil example of the divergence between ape and chimp

or Between chimp and bonobo.

And as for my other assertion it is true. There is no casual link between humans and these proposed ancestors. No DNA matching them together.

Even if evolution was true and we had a complete fossil record there is no way to know if a specific fossil in the ground is the species that humans and chimpanzees eventually diverged from. It could be that they are only similar to the missing link. We don't even have their DNA past a few hundred thousand years. That is why proper evolutionary family trees are drawn so that none of the species are shown to be ancestral to any other or to modern species and are drawn on their own branches.

But we have found many species that are part of the family tree of species transitional between humans and apes as human evolution was happening. Some scientists have conjectured that Ardipithecus Ramidus might be the missing link but there is no way to know for sure.

And the so called enlarged brain of A. Africanus is still within the normal range of a normal chimpanzee with the same body mass.

The conjecture is, it's a chimpanzee that walked a lot on two legs... Humans walk on two legs.. boom bam evolutionary relationship.

Walking on two legs is a distinctly human trait and is not seen in any living ape species or their fossils. While their cranial capacity is in the chimpanzee range their average brain size is larger. The average chimpanzee cranial capacity is 375 cc but some large ones have as high as 500 cc. The average A. Africanus brain size was 460 cc. They were about the same weight as chimps and their brains represents a 20-25% increase in average cranial capacity.

They are seen right after we see ape fossils and more primitive fossils like Ardipithecus and more advanced transitional homo fossils exactly in evolutionary sequence.

But if any other ape outside of Africa is found, it's convergent evolution.. Similar traits like walking on two legs, independently evolved with no family relationship.

There is no example of such an ape. We know that if evolution was true some convergent evolution would be expected but too much convergent evolution is unlikely to happen by chance. So scientists can't just use convergent evolution to explain everything. If they found a human fossil below A. Africanus evolution would have a huge problem. Yet this doesn't ever happen.

At 5/1/2016 5:09:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:If it looks like an ape, AND the timing fits then it is called a human ancestor.But when you try to get the specific chimp human link, nonechimp ape link, none.chimp bonobo link, none

The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes

Two African apes are the closest living relatives of humans: the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus). Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours, and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other. Here we report the sequencing and assembly of the bonobo genome to study its evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzee and human genomes. We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other. These regions allow various aspects of the ancestry of the two ape species to be reconstructed. In addition, many of the regions that overlap genes may eventually help us understand the genetic basis of phenotypes that humans share with one of the two apes to the exclusion of the other.

As for the genetic similarities, They to are not a link that A.Africanus is related to humans, or it's related to chimps.

There is no way to know that a fossil in the ground is the direct ancestor of any modern species and not closely related to that common ancestor. We don't even have their DNA. This is why proper family free diagrams look like this:https://bare5dotcom.files.wordpress.com...

It be a more believable story if maybe from the differences in the genetic code, could be demonstrated to cause some physical feature seen in the fossil.

The fossils in the ground have been there for millions of years so their DNA has degraded. There is no good way of determine direct ancestry only whether they were part of the general transition from apes to humans.

But we don't have that. All we have is a time frame from genetics, being conjecture to a physical feature of a fossil.

What we see is a sequence of fossils that are more and more human-like the higher in the strata they are just like evolution predicts.Finding humans out of order instead of at the top would destroy human evolution theories but we don't see that.

At 5/2/2016 1:24:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:You all need to bone up on the human Evolutionary story.

this is what scientist are saying now.

"Based on the time frame, body shape, and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo. Most likely, some of the australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below) were in our line of evolution, but the later paranthropoids (blue below) were not. The first humans (Homo habilis click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced) were contemporaries of the paranthropoids. As a result, they could not be our ancestors. However, it is likely that Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus were in our evolutionary line. Australopithecus garhi and/or Australopitheus sediba may also have been our ancestors, though more evidence is needed to settle this question."

Do you see the question marks? See how there is no link between homo and the red line.

And I still stand by my early assertion. there is no fossil example of the divergence between human and chimp.

No fossil example of the divergence between ape and chimp

or Between chimp and bonobo.

And as for my other assertion it is true. There is no casual link between humans and these proposed ancestors. No DNA matching them together.

Even if evolution was true and we had a complete fossil record there is no way to know if a specific fossil in the ground is the species that humans and chimpanzees eventually diverged from. It could be that they are only similar to the missing link. We don't even have their DNA past a few hundred thousand years. That is why proper evolutionary family trees are drawn so that none of the species are shown to be ancestral to any other or to modern species and are drawn on their own branches.

But we have found many species that are part of the family tree of species transitional between humans and apes as human evolution was happening. Some scientists have conjectured that Ardipithecus Ramidus might be the missing link but there is no way to know for sure.

And the so called enlarged brain of A. Africanus is still within the normal range of a normal chimpanzee with the same body mass.

The conjecture is, it's a chimpanzee that walked a lot on two legs... Humans walk on two legs.. boom bam evolutionary relationship.

and is not seen in any living ape species or their fossils. While their cranial capacity is in the chimpanzee range their average brain size is larger. The average chimpanzee cranial capacity is 375 cc but some large ones have as high as 500 cc. The average A. Africanus brain size was 460 cc. They were about the same weight as chimps and their brains represents a 20-25% increase in average cranial capacity.

And how many samples of A. Africanus skulls are there? As you said there are chimps with 500cc. If there are 3 skulls. One of which is a juvenile male. Is that a big enough sample to draw a conclusion about the average Africanus brain capacity? No not with any real confidence. Plus Africanus fossils date to 2.2 million years. This is way after the genetic split of chimp and human.

They are seen right after we see ape fossils and more primitive fossils like Ardipithecus and more advanced transitional homo fossils exactly in evolutionary sequence.

Terms like advanced, and primitive only have bearing when there is an established beginning state and end state. Evolution has no purpose and it is not by design. So the apparent "advanceness" of any feature is random.

Yes and if they were not related could random evolution of changing species still account for the features. YES.

Even if they were not related by ancestry different unrelated species could still exhibit these different features.

But if any other ape outside of Africa is found, it's convergent evolution.. Similar traits like walking on two legs, independently evolved with no family relationship.

There is no example of such an ape. We know that if evolution was true some convergent evolution would be expected but too much convergent evolution is unlikely to happen by chance. So scientists can't just use convergent evolution to explain everything. If they found a human fossil below A. Africanus evolution would have a huge problem. Yet this doesn't ever happen.

The example of giganthopus I gave is such an ape. The widening of the back of the jaw was used as evidence for an upright back. That as the head sits further back on the neck the widening is so the breath tube can pass through. but no one wants to say we com from a 1,000 lb orangutan from Asia. So scientist say it was convergent independent separate evolution of an upright back.

Well to clear this whole mess up we need to find the aquatic ape fossils.

At 5/2/2016 1:24:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:You all need to bone up on the human Evolutionary story.

this is what scientist are saying now.

"Based on the time frame, body shape, and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo. Most likely, some of the australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below) were in our line of evolution, but the later paranthropoids (blue below) were not. The first humans (Homo habilis click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced) were contemporaries of the paranthropoids. As a result, they could not be our ancestors. However, it is likely that Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus were in our evolutionary line. Australopithecus garhi and/or Australopitheus sediba may also have been our ancestors, though more evidence is needed to settle this question."

Do you see the question marks? See how there is no link between homo and the red line.

And I still stand by my early assertion. there is no fossil example of the divergence between human and chimp.

No fossil example of the divergence between ape and chimp

or Between chimp and bonobo.

And as for my other assertion it is true. There is no casual link between humans and these proposed ancestors. No DNA matching them together.

Even if evolution was true and we had a complete fossil record there is no way to know if a specific fossil in the ground is the species that humans and chimpanzees eventually diverged from. It could be that they are only similar to the missing link. We don't even have their DNA past a few hundred thousand years. That is why proper evolutionary family trees are drawn so that none of the species are shown to be ancestral to any other or to modern species and are drawn on their own branches.

But we have found many species that are part of the family tree of species transitional between humans and apes as human evolution was happening. Some scientists have conjectured that Ardipithecus Ramidus might be the missing link but there is no way to know for sure.

And the so called enlarged brain of A. Africanus is still within the normal range of a normal chimpanzee with the same body mass.

The conjecture is, it's a chimpanzee that walked a lot on two legs... Humans walk on two legs.. boom bam evolutionary relationship.

Bears too. I can even get my dog to walk of two legs as well if I hold up a treat. But their bodies are not built to walk on two legs all the time like ours are. It is actually very energy consuming and slow for them to walk on two legs.

and is not seen in any living ape species or their fossils. While their cranial capacity is in the chimpanzee range their average brain size is larger. The average chimpanzee cranial capacity is 375 cc but some large ones have as high as 500 cc. The average A. Africanus brain size was 460 cc. They were about the same weight as chimps and their brains represents a 20-25% increase in average cranial capacity.

And how many samples of A. Africanus skulls are there? As you said there are chimps with 500cc. If there are 3 skulls. One of which is a juvenile male. Is that a big enough sample to draw a conclusion about the average Africanus brain capacity? No not with any real confidence. Plus Africanus fossils date to 2.2 million years. This is way after the genetic split of chimp and human.

There are just a few but there are many Australopithecine species.

They are seen right after we see ape fossils and more primitive fossils like Ardipithecus and more advanced transitional homo fossils exactly in evolutionary sequence.

Terms like advanced, and primitive only have bearing when there is an established beginning state and end state. Evolution has no purpose and it is not by design. So the apparent "advanceness" of any feature is random.

We can see what is primitive by what is at the lower levels of the fossil record. At the lower levels we only find apes and that makes sense since evolution tends to go from less advanced to more advanced.

Yes and if they were not related could random evolution of changing species still account for the features. YES.

Even if they were not related by ancestry different unrelated species could still exhibit these different features.

Yes it is possible. However evolution requires a general ordering of fossils and predicts that we found find transitional fossils in the right order between humans and apes and that is what we see. If evolution was false we would not expect to find this ordering at all. Maybe we would find some human fossils with the dinosaurs.

But if any other ape outside of Africa is found, it's convergent evolution.. Similar traits like walking on two legs, independently evolved with no family relationship.

There is no example of such an ape. We know that if evolution was true some convergent evolution would be expected but too much convergent evolution is unlikely to happen by chance. So scientists can't just use convergent evolution to explain everything. If they found a human fossil below A. Africanus evolution would have a huge problem. Yet this doesn't ever happen.

The example of giganthopus I gave is such an ape. The widening of the back of the jaw was used as evidence for an upright back. That as the head sits further back on the neck the widening is so the breath tube can pass through. but no one wants to say we com from a 1,000 lb orangutan from Asia. So scientist say it was convergent independent separate evolution of an upright back.

These things are only questionable clues not direct proof of bipedality. In order to really say that it was scientists would have to take a better look at the hole at the bottom of the skull, its hips and its feet. You really can't make a lot of definite conclusions on a single jaw and a few teeth. You can make some interesting hypotheses though. Scientists don't accept it as an ancestor because of a lack of evidence and we have far more complete fossils showing a different evolutionary path.

Well to clear this whole mess up we need to find the aquatic ape fossils.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

We are apes, so yes, we definately come from apes. Man comes from apes. There you go, said and done.

But saying that we came from monkeys, or that we evolved from monkeys is different, much like how my uncle and I are both humans, but I cannot say that i came from my uncle. My uncle and I, share a common ancestor.

So when you say "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys", its like saying "I come from humans" and "I come from my uncle". One is true, the other is not.

At 5/1/2016 1:53:59 AM, TBR wrote:I am offering a open challenge for anyone to find any scientist or member of this site who is NOT a creationists who has said "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys" or...

If said reference is found, this thread can be pointed to by every creationists in any conversation to prove me and others wrong who say you are misrepresenting and presenting the typical straw-man.

Bring it on please.

We are apes, so yes, we definately come from apes. Man comes from apes. There you go, said and done.

But saying that we came from monkeys, or that we evolved from monkeys is different, much like how my uncle and I are both humans, but I cannot say that i came from my uncle. My uncle and I, share a common ancestor.

So when you say "man comes from apes" or "man evolved from monkeys", its like saying "I come from humans" and "I come from my uncle". One is true, the other is not.

Is that common ancestor ape or human?

if that common ancestor was alive today it would be classified as a type of chimpanzee and put in a zoo.